previous next


VIS ET VIS ARMATA There was an interdict uncle vi or de vi which could be maintained by a man who was forcibly ejected from the possession of a piece of ground or building ( “unde tu ilium vi dejecisti restituas” ) against the person who had ejected him. The interdict had two forms, according as to whether deadly weapons had been used in carrying out the ejectment or not. The interdict in the latter case of simple violence is called by Cicero interdictum quotidianum; the interdict in case of armed violence was known as interdictum de vi armata. When the interdict was brought on account of eviction by ordinary violence, the defendant could defend himself by proving that he himself had been previously evicted by the plaintiff vi, clam, or precario [POSSESSIO], but he was precluded from this defence if he had been guilty of vis armata. By a constitution of the Emperor Valentinian (Cod. 8, 4, 7), however, it was provided that a person who had evicted another by violence should in all cases restore possessio, and, if owner, should forfeit his property; if not owner, should forfeit the value. Thus the plea that the plaintiff had acquired possession vi, clam, or precario from the defendant, was excluded in the case of vis quotidiana as well as in that of vis armata. (Dig. 43, 16; Gaius, 4.154, ed. Poste; INTERDICTUM; POSSESSIO; for an account of the praetorian action de vi bonorum raptorum, see FURTUM


hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: